Status Quo–Part Three

Recently I mentioned that if there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are in your organization—just watch how they treat the status quo.  Managers tend to make the status quo more efficient while leaders tend to make a new status quo.

Here’s a few closing thoughts on status quo…lest there’s any confusion from my first two posts on the subject last week:

***the status quo, per se, may not always be a bad thing—especially for a successful company who is dominating their niche.  Growth (an allure for most leaders) for growth’s sake may not prove to be a smart move.  Be aware of what Jim Collins refers to as the undisciplined pursuit of more.  What’s undisciplined?  1) Taking action inconsistent with your core values. 2) Discontinuous leaps into arenas for which you have no burning passion. 3) Launching into activities that do not fit with your economic or resource engine. 4) Investing heavily in new arenas where you cannot attain distinctive capability.  The complete list is contained on page 55 of Collin’s 2009 book How The Mighty Fall.

***consistent with the previous item—sometimes the best decisions turn out to be those so-called opportunities you elect not to pursue.  Instead you chose to focus on those things you believe you can do exceptionally well.  For instance when Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO he killed any project that did not fit into one of four categories he decreed as company priorities. The categories were those that Jobs believed Apple could become a leader in. He created a new status quo—in that Apple would no longer chase growth in areas where they had little chance of differentiating themselves.    

***a new status quos (one with BIG impact) isn’t a one-and –done type of thing.  The new status quo of  ‘everyone an innovator’  that was introduced at Whirlpool in 1999 for example, took time before it was fully integrated and bore fruit.  Introducing another major initiative during that time would have created havoc.  It was only after the ‘innovator’ status quo was mature could Whirlpool consider introducing the next one.

***a good manager and a good leader can both introduce change—the difference being in the degree of impact.  Change for the manager is typically more incremental in nature, for the leader it’s more analogous to a breakthrough (because it creates a new status quo…which typically requires a higher level of thinking).  Remember when we say manager or leader, we’re not referring to someone’s title.  Rather, we’re looking at their impact. There are a lot of wonderful leaders out there who have ‘manager’ embedded in their title.

***making the status quo more efficient (what managers do) is analogous to “doing your job really well”.  Creating a new status quo (what leaders do) speaks to a higher purpose, looking at the bigger picture, and creating even more “greater good”. The level of thinking between the two is vastly different.

***we don’t mean to suggest that all change associated with the status quo is good.  Sometimes the proposed change backfires (because it’s fundamentally a bad idea) or muddies the water (because of bad timing—i.e. there’s already too much churn in the organization) or becomes a distraction (a good idea that provides short-term benefit but drains focus, energy, and resources away from an initiative      that’s expected to provide a bigger long-term benefit).

Hope these thoughts help.

 

Status Quo—Part Two

In yesterday’s post we noted that managers tend to focus on making the status quo more efficient.  In other words, whatever changes they make typically are more tactical in nature. These types of folks tend to act as custodians.  The expectations of a ‘caretaker executive’, for example, is to keep things running, minimize risk, and basically not screw things up.

This doesn’t suggest that these types of individuals don’t demonstrate leadership—because they do.  For instance, a manager who defends a company value (rarely a fun experience) is performing an especially important aspect of their responsibilities.  However, an isolated act of leadership doesn’t make one ‘Lincoln-esque’. Regardless of whatever lofty title the ‘caretaker executive’ was given, their basic role is managerial in nature.

Likewise, even the most transformative leader typically has traditional ‘management’ responsibilities. For example, bringing in the operating budget five percent below target is a short term imperative for the director who is accustomed to shaking things up.  Yet even though leaders have responsibility for comparatively pedestrian tasks such as managing budgets, their larger contribution is changing the unproductive aspects of the status quo.  That means forging new policies, breeding expectations for  better processes, revitalizing the culture—all in the name of improving results.

In other words, leaders manage, and managers lead.  What makes them one or the other is determined by the per ponderous of what they do—not by an envious title or by the power they hold.  How they impact the status quo becomes the acid test in determining whether they’re a manager or a leader.

There is nothing so obvious as the manager (labeled as such through their decreed title) who leads effectively by thoughtfully and stridently advancing an agenda that keeps the organization ahead of the curve in a time of dynamic change.  Likewise, there’s nothing more maddening than the leader (that adjective being implicit with a lofty title) who fiddles (i.e. manages) while Rome burns.

If there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are —just watch how they treat the status quo.

 

 

Status Quo—The Key Differentiator Between Managers and Leaders

A new hire arrives on the scene full of enthusiasm and wonder.  During the course of their business-unit orientation, the newbie’s coach spends the majority of their time helping them prepare for success.  The gist of what the coach communicates is, “this is what we do and how we do it.”   Without realizing it, the coach has described the business unit’s status quo—‘the way things are’.  For the ‘new kid on the block’, this information proves invaluable.

Recognizing and understanding the status quo is important. Departments have them, job classifications have them, individuals have them.  Naturally, the  enterprise has them. The status quo is the condition that is produced when processes, policies, procedures, and cultural norms are all amalgamated. The status quo is ultimately a reflection of the level (and depth) of thinking within the organization.

While understanding the status quo is initially helpful for the newbie, it can be death for the veteran and the greater organization of which they are a part.

***The status quo will ultimately prove to have minimal impact for a mature  operating company wishing to strip significant expenses from its cost structure.

***The status quo will ultimately prove the undoing for the technician who hasn’t significantly upgraded their skills in five years.

***The status quo (and the complacency that goes with it) will ultimately prove the downfall for an organization desiring to be ‘the best of the best’.

Today’s market leaders think differently—they abhor aspects of the status quo that hold them back. That’s why:

In general, managers make the status quo more efficient, while leaders create a new status quo. While efficiencies are desirable, they’ll ultimately prove insufficient for those desiring market leadership.

A new status quo is a big deal—whether it’s for an individual, a department or an enterprise.  The scale doesn’t matter, impact does.  What will it be for you?       

Adversity Trumped–Progressive Avoids Its Waterloo

In November 1988 California voters passed Proposition 103 which mandated sweeping reforms within the insurance industry. In effect, it meant 20% reductions in rates and significant refunds were in store for policy-holders.  The Proposition’s passage was California’s voters way of punishing an industry they were fed up with.

Progressive Insurance, which at the time ranked #13 in the American private-passenger auto-insurance market, had a quarter of its business in California. The Proposition’s passage took a big hit on Progressive.

After the initial shock, CEO Peter Lewis called his staff together and challenged them to built a  better company.  What resulted was nothing short of remarkable. Progressive instituted new innovative claims service with roving claims adjusters that work from a fleet of vans and SUV’s which could be immediately dispatched to policy-holders homes or even the scene of an accident. By 1995 80 % of the time Progressive adjusters were issuing claim checks within 24 hours of an accident. This improvement was one of many.

By 2002 Progressive’s industry ranking had risen to #4. Lewis later called Proposition 103 “the best thing that ever happened to this company”.

It would have been easy for Lewis and his people to whine about life not being fair.    They didn’t. Instead they saw it as an opportunity. It proved to be just that. They were committed to results (MS #1) and knew things would only get better when they did (MS#3).  It’s a remarkable story that Jim Collins memorializes in Great By Choice (page 168).

It’s a life’s lesson for all of us.

 

 

Breakthroughs Aren’t For The Faint of Heart

Robert Shiller, a Yale economist, is probably best known for having written Irrational Exuberance—the 2004 book that was prescient in foretelling the nation’s debilitating  housing crisis. He attributes the approach he took in his book to advice his father had given him—namely to “pursue things that sound [and feel] right to you”.

Shiller notes in Fortune (Dec 12, 2011) , “I said in the preface I was worried that the boom in home prices might collapse,bring on bankruptcy in both business and households, and lead to a world recession. I remember thinking that this sounds kind of flaky–nobody else is saying this.  I can’t prove it, this could be embarrassing.  But I learned from my father not to care what other people think. This was my book, and I believed this, so I just said it.”

I really relate to Shiller…having taken on some sacred cows myself in The Power of Professionalism.

Like Shiller, there are aspects of The Power of Professionalism that I can’t prove. And, like Shiller, no one in (or outside) of my field was advocating what I was. Yes, I believed…so, like Shiller, I just said what I had to say.  It felt right to me.

Turns out, a lot of people (many experts in my field) believed in the ideas that I was advancing.  That’s really validating; but also can lend itself to an inflated ego (believing one’s press clippings usually proves self-defeating).  The social acclaim and ego rush of being right (when that’s the case) isn’t the point.

What is the point is how your point-of-view helps people or things that are bigger than you.  It’s all about Mind-Set #2 (being a part of something bigger than yourself).

Got an idea or point-of-view that you think warrants advancing?  First, do your homework. Think deeply about it.  Scrutinize it from every angle.Tear it apart.   Challenge your assumptions. Then make ‘little bets‘ (see the book of the same name by my friend Peter Sims) …test the premise out with friends, with adversaries…write about it.  Soon enough you’ll know whether or not you’re on to something.

You’ll know it’s right when it sounds and feels right to you. At that point, if you’ve still got something to say, go ahead….say it!

 

 

 

A Glimpse Into Kathy Ireland–Business Mogul

Of all the world-class contributors to The Power of Professionalism, Kathy Ireland is the person I’m most frequently asked about.  This post is a glimpse into Kathy the business mogul.      

As the ‘presenter’ of Kathy Ireland at a prestigious awards ceremony in Nov 2011 (Kathy was the recipient of the John F Kennedy Laureate award) I stated that Kathy was as “intelligent as she was beautiful”.

The recent article on Kathy that appeared in the Feb 13, 2012 issue of Forbes reinforces that point.

Here’s the article that appeared in Forbes.

Here’s the video that compliments the article.

Enjoy.

Professionals Don’t Trash Their Competition

Business requires we compete.  But most people intuitively sense that there’s a right way and a wrong way to compete.  One of the wrong ways is ‘going negative’. This is something that professionals know only too well.   Trashing your competition may provide a short term adrenalin rush, but long term goes over like a lead balloon.  People only want to be exposed to that type of rhetoric for so long, and soon after they’ll turn you off.  Worse yet, it makes you look petty.

People prefer to be for something as opposed to being against something….it generates more enthusiasm, more energy.  People want to know what your value proposition is…how you can help them…what you’re all about…why you’re better.  Trash your competition at your own risk.

Take the case of the PR firm that was hired by Facebook to “plant anti-Google stories in papers and blogs”.  This revelation was outlined in the Nov 29, 2011 cover story in Fortune regarding the future of social media and the fight between the industry’s two 800 pound gorillas.

Journalists soon discovered what the PR firm was up to.  This hurt the PR firm’s reputation and once again proves why white collar firms aren’t necessarily ‘professional’.  Facebook would have been better served to channel their energy into building a better product.  Instead, Facebook’s decision proved regretful and made the firm look sophomoric.

Compete?  Sure.  But don’t be tempted to take the low road.  Professionals compete to win in the marketplace—-not by ‘going negative’ on their competition.

Good Meeting? Bad Meeting? Look In The Mirror!

Have you ever been in a meeting when:

***the group’s enthusiasm gets squashed due to a few individuals negativity?

***the group gets stuck in the weeds

***constructive discussion turns into contention as people’s passion spills over

***the group’s energy gets drained upon the announcement of an unpopular decision

***apathy prevails when a less-popular colleague leads the meeting

***a normally rock-solid colleague uncharacteristically belly-flops on a vital presentation

Because negative energy feeds on itself, it’s easy to get sucked into a downward spiral in these types of situations.  Meetings of this sort are painful, often becoming the grist for Dilbert’s mill.  That’s why MS #6 (getting a hold of your emotions) is all-important here.

It’s almost guaranteed that, absent an intervention, the meeting will be a negative experience. For the professional, it’s recovery time. As easy as it might be to join the majority who enjoy whining about the meeting, the professional is unwilling to settle.  The professional asks themselves, “what can I do to help get this meeting back on track?” (consistent with MS #1…’having a bias for results’)

Thus, in responding to the situations above:

***the professional offers a contrarian point of view—one that offers a healthy dose of optimism

***the professional interjects a question or comment that gets the meeting re-focused.

***the professional points out that the meeting has become unproductive and asks the group, “Given  our situation, what do we need to do as professionals to get this meeting back on track?”

***the professional reminds the group of a similar situation years earlier—one in which people’s fears were never realized.

***the professional tactfully points out the group’s dysfunction, reminds them of the big picture, and challenges them to do better.

***the professional who draws the group’s focus to themselves—stalling for time—all the while enabling their flustered colleague to compose themselves and ultimately recover.

To be clear, the professional isn’t being a ‘yes man’, isn’t being pollyannish about issues of substance,  isn’t playing politics.  Rather, they are attempting to make the best out of a sometimes poor situation—in an objective, yet optimistic way. Professionals know that a good meeting—first and foremost–starts with them.